 This early 15 minutes on the second day of our annual conference are reserved for the ESRB secretariat. Outside our membership, the secretariat is perhaps the least visible component of the ESRB. Once a year, we are opening a window on the activities of our group, activities which are obviously closely aligned to the work of the broader member-based institutions we are serving. We see ourselves as the catalyst of work at ESRB and as the ESRB's in-house think tank reflecting upon the challenges of macro-prudential policy in Europe. Every enterprise, even the most solid, every endeavor, even the most ambitious, needs to be based on a sense of awareness about the limitation of its actions. For a small secretariat, being conscious of its limits is the first and crucial condition to overcome them. The second is to combine humbleness with optimism and ambition. Of course, we know that many institutions have a much longer history than the institutions we work for. Some are ESRB members, while others, like the IMF, are part of our broader network. We are cognizant that all of them have greatly contributed to make the financial system safer at the secretariat. We admire them and recognize their great merits. On our part, we have tried to identify areas where we could help ESRB progress incrementally but continuously within the scope of its mandate. Our method has been to foster cooperation and dialogue to create a joint credible narrative and eventually to reflect together with the ESRB members on how to make an intelligent use of soft law, the main device which the legislator has awarded to the ESRB. Taking a bird's-eye view, the secretariat has made continuous investment to support ESRB work in two areas over the past few years. The first has been in the more operational understanding of the central role of the structural dynamics of real estate markets. The second has been in the area of the systematic use of granular financial information to inform policy decisions. Let me tell you about our experience with this. The ESRB has recently issued five warnings and six recommendations to member states on the area of residential real estate. This has meant to experience a very intense phase of work along several months to support decision making on a crucially potential vulnerability. This is not the first time the ESRB has done so. The ESRB has already issued the first series of warnings to eight countries in 2016. Two years later, it analyzed in a report that the vulnerabilities in the areas of commercial real estate. Recently, it also published manuals to assess the risk in those areas. Finally, it issues the recommendations to statistical bodies to close the relevant data gaps. For us at the Secretariat, all of this it has meant that we had to enhance our knowledge in three respects. The evaluation of risks, the availability of data, and the assessment of the appropriateness and sufficiency of the policy response. On the first point, the risk assessment, the Secretariat has tried to establish within the ESRB a high level of mutual understanding on a broad set of relevant issues affecting markets, households, and banks. To be in a continuous dialogue on the perception of vulnerabilities and to appreciate the intricacies of the national and sometimes even regional and local markets has been at times a challenge but has paid off. Certainly, and this is my second point, particularly in the area of real estate, the ESRB still suffers from a scarcity of data. This is why we undertook action already at an early stage to recommend the closing gaps. This is easier said than done. The Secretariat typically holds the pen when it comes to drafting ESRB recommendations. To do so for the recommendation on closing real estate gaps required to combine three types of professional expertise. On the nature of the risks, the availability of reliable information and the techniques to harmonize statistical definitions. It has been a very demanding journey during which, however, we have also met many new friends. We had already at our side the statisticians of the ECB who are providing unaccredited as a valuable source of information. We can now count also on Eurostat to achieve in a few years even better data coverage in particular on the physical markets of commercial real estate. Finally, to make headway on the third aspect, the assessment of policy responses by national authorities, we have soon learned that we need joint criteria to evaluate the existence of legal tools available to national institutions, to undertake an analysis of their combined effects, and to count the shared conclusions on the pros and cons of macroprudential action. We call these comprehensive reflections on these aspects macroprudential stance and the real estate is where we have tested it most in the last years. In fact, we have already practiced it when we helped the ESRB through its assessment team to express views about many national measures affecting real estate in fulfillment of the role assigned to us by the EU legislation. Those who visit the ESRB website will see that the ESRB gave great attention in the drafts of its opinions based on Article 458 of the CRR. We hope that over time, we have helped the ESRB to establish a jurisprudence of shared European assessment which support the rich set of national macroprudential measures. In sum, combining these three dimensions, risk analysis, data availability, and policy assessment, we have discovered that in order to help the ESRB in its actions to identify and mitigate real estate risks, we need to be able to bring together the big picture and the passion for detail. Let me now turn to big data. This combination between the big and the small, the big picture and the detail has also been the main requirement of our work on financial data, the second area on which I would like to talk. Here, let me say that we have been courageous and perhaps even audacious. The choice of such a small group of professionals to act as a catalyst, working in innovative way on a big database like EMEA was the right one. You may know that thanks to ESMA, the ESRB receives, since a few years, 100 million data points per day with all transactions in derivative markets, both cleared and not cleared in the year 28. Today, reporting is increasingly automatized and can provide policymaker with anonymized information from an immense set of real data. We have learned that using real data to discuss macro situations of potential systemic relevance is accepted across the ESRB as they are fundamental for good decision making. In order to work with such confidential data, what is needed is to create and maintain a high degree of mutual confidence about the control of information. This has, of course, also required sizable investment in technology and know-how. None of these would have been possible without the support of the ECB. It is thanks to the powerful infrastructure and engineering capacities here that we can open enormous files with a six second response time. We want to open up the availability of the results of this technology to ESRB members by distributing to them relevant aggregate information on a regular basis, obviously using confidential channels. Let me conclude with two further considerations of big data. First, I have referred to a mirror and data on derivative markets. Currently, the Secretary is working to extend this analytical work to new databases, AFMD on investment funds, security finance and transactions and securitization. So we will soon be in a situation of an unprecedented capacity to cross-check information. It is an opportunity for the ESRB to better understand reality we cannot miss. Let me add that there is also a need to have a mapping of data available to EU institutions and the cross-checking among them. The Secretary is working with the ECB, with all the institutions of the Joint Committee of the ASAS and with the European Commission to make headway. It is the commitment of all the parties involved to work together to really invent, let me use this work which recalls a sense of enthusiasm and experiment new ways to let data from different reporting sources speak to each other. Even when it is not possible due to well-understood legal constraints to transfer granular information, macro and micro-prudential risk managers need to be able to use a common language and find answers together. Second, I think it is important to pass a message to industry. I am doing it today as head of the secretariat, but I'm sure it is widely shared among our institutions. We call for progress on data quality, also in the interest of the industry itself. Our ambition to make it possible one day for decision-makers to have a very trusted set of almost real-time indicators computed automatically by a crossing-being data is based on the belief that all stakeholders will ultimately benefit from it. Its company, in fact, has access to its own dataset that can take real-time measures to control risk at individual level. We hope one day to help industry with our public provision of additional indicators also computed on a quasi-real-time which will permit industry participants to gain a broader picture against a set of anonymized statistical evidence. I am, of course, aware that I've started praising the virtue of humbleness and I have now been creating high expectations for the next years. These days, also working with scientists visiting the SRB and DCB from the entire world, we have understood that progress is attainable and let me ensure we will be persistent. Combining realities with a sense of drive has been possible thanks to my formidable staff, rich of expertise in many diverse fields and at the same time endowed with great personal qualities. Working with them is, for me, a great emotional privilege. I would like to thank my deputy, Thomas Peltonen and all the colleagues. One day we will tell our children and grandchildren what we tried to achieve together. I am extremely grateful to the other ECB colleagues who are here today. I would like, ideally, to shake all their hands. I see our cousins of the Director General of Macropudential Policy and Financial Stability who have been accompanying our analytical policy work since the very start. The meetings of the SRB have always benefited from their excellent input. I also see many generous professionals in the IT, statistical, legal and logistical domain. Also thanks to the SSM colleagues for their ever stronger cooperation. Besides the ECB, the role of the SRB's member institution has not only been extremely valuable, it has been the SRB's strongest asset during these years. A large part of the SRB work has been the result of the passion of colleagues outside the ECB's payroll. As usual, also yesterday, experts and managers coming from different institutions have presented the results of the joint work of the SRB decision-making body, the General Board. They brought innovative work on margin and haircut and on commercial real estate. They are doing currently further work, for instance, on cyber risk and accounting standards. I am highly appreciative to them and their authorities. The SRB Secretary would have been a much less fascinating place to work if we had not borrowed half of our staff from the SRB member institutions across Europe. We have enjoyed embracing central bankers and supervisors, lawyers and economists, insurance and CCP overseers, statisticians and institutional experts. The turnover of people have been extraordinarily high but the intensity and speed of the generation of ideas has beaten it. Thanks to also to the members of the ASC and in particular to the Chair Richard Portes and the Vice-Chairs Javier Suarez and Isabel Schnabel, nothing I mentioned would have been possible if we had not always been stimulated by many discussions and exchanges of views with you. Concerning data in particular, I am of course thinking with great sadness of Alberto Giovannini, whose name will be honored with the above mention of visitor program which will hold his name. I would like to mention over the last years also the three chairs of the Advisory Technical Committee, Governor Stefan Ingves, Philip Lane and Pablo Hernandez, the COS, to have governors taking direct responsibility for the SRB, most operational committee has transcended the SRB. Their close interaction with the secretariat has also been a personal privilege. In a few days, present and former staff from the secretariat will offer a training on macro prudential risk in insurance to a selected public of experts attending a course at the European University Institute in Florence. It has been a great pleasure to prepare it with the colleagues of EOPA. This is also a proof of the continuous efforts we have made to expand the traditional scope of macro prudential policy in order to encompass all sectors of the financial system. We need a continuous and persistent educational effort to explain the merits of macro prudential policy beyond banking. Finally, I would like to thank President Draghi. I have learned enormously for him, in particular from his capacity to take the decisive action every time progress was needed. I was particularly honored accompanying him to the hearings at European Parliament as I did a few days ago to ensure accountability of our work for eight years. Let me say that this have been eight pretty difficult years. Contrary to what Fukuyama wrote some time ago, it seems that history does not want to finish soon. Whatever the future course of things will be, I am sure that the SRB will remain at the forefront of macro prudential policy with Madame Lagarde in the next eight years. And on this, I hope I will report to you starting next year. Many thanks for your attention.